vlc-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

remove_playlist_item

Removes an item from the VLC playlist by its ID, clearing unwanted entries so playback lists stay organized. Note that VLC marks this command unsupported, so it may not work.

Instructions

Remove an item from the playlist by its id. VLC marks this command as unsupported, so it may not work.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "item_id": "<item_id>"
    },
    "name": "remove_playlist_item"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`item_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose that VLC marks this command unsupported and it may fail, which is real behavioral context. However, it does not say what a failure looks like, whether the call errors or silently no-ops, or what happens to playlist indices after removal.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the caveat. Nothing is padded, though the caveat could be tightened by saying what the agent should do when it fails.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, for a mutation tool with no annotations, missing guidance on id provenance and failure behavior leaves an agent under-informed about correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, and it only partially does: 'by its id' clarifies that item_id is a playlist item identifier rather than a media file id. It adds little beyond the schema's 'Item Id' title and gives no format or source for the id.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: 'Remove an item from the playlist'. It also states the keying mechanism ('by its id'), which separates it from a bulk operation like clear_playlist. It stops short of naming a sibling outright, so it lands at clear but not differentiated-by-name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus clear_playlist or how to obtain a valid item_id (presumably from get_playlist). The only conditional statement is a reliability caveat, not usage guidance, so the agent must infer the workflow.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.